Minutes: April 14th, 2009

ACADEMIC SENATE MEETING

MINUTES

TUESDAY, April 14, 2009

SEVEN HILLS CONFERENCE CENTER, NOB

HILL ROOM

2:00 - 5:00 p.m.

CALL TO ORDER: 2:15 p.m.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

Chair Whalen estimates that the April 28^th

Academic Senate meeting will last until 5 p.m., as there are many new items

that must be introduced in first reading at that meeting so they can return in

second reading at the final meeting on May 12^th.

AGENDA ITEM #1—Approval of the Agenda for April 14, 2009.

Senator McCracken moved to add a new item #6, Resolution in

Support of Emergency Preparedness at SF State. The motion passed.

The agenda as amended was approved.

AGENDA ITEM #2—Approval of the Minutes for March 17,

2009.

The minutes of the March 17, 2009, Academic Senate meeting

were approved.

AGENDA ITEM #3—Report from Bridget McCracken, Chair,

Student Affairs Committee, and Eugene Chelberg, Associate Vice President of

Student Affairs: Introducing a New Campus Resource—Student Complaints and

Concerns Web site

Senator McCracken, chair of the Student Affairs Committee,

and Eugene Chelberg, Associate Vice President for Student Affairs, reported on

the establishment of a new student complaints and concerns website, http://www.sfsu.edu/~vpsa/complaints/.

Senator Rehling was thanked for her help in writing the website material.

AGENDA ITEM #4—Recommendation from the Student Affairs

Committee: Proposed Revisions to the Enrollment Management Policy #F02-222,

Second Reading.

Senator McCracken, on behalf of the Student Affairs

Committee, moved that the Senate approve revisions to the policy on Enrollment

Management, #F02-222. The motion passed.

AGENDA ITEM #5— Recommendation from the Executive

Committee: Proposed Revisions to the Course Repeat Policy, #F08-248, Second

Reading.

Senator Trautman, on behalf of the Executive Committee,

moved that the Senate approve revisions to the policy on Course Repeat,

#F08-248. The motion passed.

AGENDA ITEM #6— Recommendation from the Student Affairs

Committee: Resolution in Support of Emergency Preparedness at SF State

(Proposed resolution on WHITE distributed at the meeting.)

Senator McCracken, on behalf of the Student Affairs

Committee, moved that the Senate adopt a resolution in support of emergency

preparedness at SF State.

Senator McCracken moved that the motion be moved to second

reading. The motion passed.

The main motion, now in second reading, was approved.

AGENDA ITEM #7—Recommendation from the Academic Policies

Committee: Proposed Revisions to

the Written English Proficiency Policy, #S07-14, First Reading.

Senator Dariotis, on behalf of the Academic Policies

Committee, moved that the Senate approve revisions to the policy on Written

English Proficiency, #S07-14, specifically, revisions in the upper division

section of the policy.

Discussion items and questions included the following:

• Will changing the minimum grade required in
  
  the GWAR-designated course from a C- to a C result in students not being
  
  able to take the course CR/NC?

• The
  
  2010 timeline seems very unrealistic. Will courses be developed in a
  
  hurry, and will there be a logjam in getting the courses approved by the
  
  Committee on Written English Proficiency (CWEP)?

• What
  
  is the role of CWEP in the implementation of this policy? What is the
  
  relationship between CWEP and the Writing Across the Curriculum / Writing
  
  in the Disciplines (WAC/WID) director?

• How
  
  does CWEP “facilitate” the development of supplemental writing courses
  
  (line 33)?

• How
  
  does the course repeat policy affect students’ ability to satisfy the new
  
  GWAR-designated course requirement? Would students be allowed to repeat
  
  the course a third time?

• Since
  
  there isn’t a deadline to implement the GWAR courses, students could be
  
  confused about their graduation requirements.

• The
  
  proposed exception to the registration cap for students who do not satisfy
  
  the GWAR before completing 90 units is contrary to comprehensive plan to
  
  improve the writing of SFSU graduates submitted by the Writing Task Force
  
  in Fall 2005. What circumstances would lead CWEP to approve a
  
  GWAR-designated course to be scheduled after a student has completed 90
  
  units?

• SF
  
  State is undertaking a radical change in how writing instruction is
  
  performed; the new program should be comprehensively evaluated. How will
  
  the Academic Senate “consult” in the assessment (lines 82-86)?

The speaker’s list was exhausted.

AGENDA ITEM #8—Recommendation from the Academic Policies

Committee: Proposed Revisions to the Graduation Writing Assessment Requirement

(GWAR) Course Criteria, #S08-14, First Reading.

Senator Dariotis, on behalf of the Academic Policies

Committee, moved that the Senate approve revisions to the Graduation Writing

Assessment Requirement (GWAR) Course Criteria, #S08-14.

Discussion items and questions included the following:

• The
  
  major change in the course criteria is the change in class size. Changing
  
  the enrollment limit from 20 to 25 students would be consistent with the
  
  enrollment cap in other writing classes offered at SF State.

• Maintaining
  
  the enrollment limit at 20 students may result in students being unable
  
  enroll in the required course, thereby delaying their graduation.

• The
  
  objective of the new writing policy is to help students become excellent
  
  writers. Changing the limit just for pragmatic reasons—finite resources
  
  and an uncertain state budget appropriation—is inappropriate. Instead,
  
  assessment data should be used to determine the appropriate class size. If
  
  we’re not going forward with a better writing program, why transition from
  
  the JEPET/ENG 414 program?

• The
  
  Writing Task Force (WTF) recommended that all writing classes have an
  
  enrollment limit of 20 students. However, the WTF recommended that the
  
  GWAR writing-intensive courses have limits of 25 students. Writing
  
  instruction is exceedingly intensive labor, but writing-intensive courses,
  
  unlike composition courses, typically do not focus on writing as their
  
  primary subject.

• The
  
  GWAR classes are more like writing or composition courses than
  
  writing-intensive courses, and there won’t be separate sections of the
  
  GWAR courses for multi-lingual students. The 25-student limit is too high.

• During
  
  the initial implementation of GWAR-designated courses this semester,
  
  enrollment limits have been set at 25 students. It’s disingenuous to have
  
  the policy specify the lower limit of 20 students, if the actual limit
  
  will be 25 students. Courses designed with an anticipation of a 20-student
  
  limit may be ineffective if the actual enrollment is 25 students.

• CWEP’s
  
  authority to approve courses that exceed the enrollment maximum, as
  
  described on lines 13-15, should be better defined by including specific
  
  examples of justifiable exceptions.

• What
  
  should be done for students who do not pass a GWAR course on their first
  
  enrollment?

• The
  
  administration has previously stated that they would fund these courses at
  
  a 20-student enrollment limit. Has that commitment changed?

• Faculty
  
  Affairs remains committed to supporting whatever criteria the faculty
  
  approve for the GWAR courses.

• Last
  
  year, the Academic Senate was presented with the National Council of
  
  Teachers of English’s recommendation of a 15-student enrollment limit, and
  
  with CWEP’s representation that the WAC/WID coordinator supported the
  
  20-student enrollment limit. Have those recommendations changed in the
  
  interim?

• Senators
  
  need to appreciate the expertise of our current WAC/WID specialist, who is
  
  recommending an increase in the enrollment limit to 25 students.

• A
  
  writing program that combined 25-student enrollment limits in GWAR courses
  
  with supplemental instruction could yield better results than a program
  
  that had 20-student GWAR courses but no supplemental instruction.

• The
  
  criteria do not include any statement on the enrollment prerequisites for
  
  the GWAR courses. If a placement exam or other assessment could be
  
  incorporated into the enrollment requirements, then under-prepared
  
  students could be directed to appropriate preparatory or supplemental
  
  instruction courses.

The speaker’s list was exhausted.

AGENDA ITEM #9—Recommendation from the Student Affairs

Committee: Proposed Revisions to the Religious Holidays Policy, #F00-212, First

Reading.

Senator McCracken, on behalf of the Student Affairs

Committee, moved that the Senate approve revisions to the policy on Religious

Holidays, #F00-212.

Discussion items and questions included the following:

• Lines
  
  24-26 should be revised to yield a better understanding.

The speaker’s list was exhausted.

AGENDA ITEM #10—Recommendation from the Educational

Policies Council: Proposed Discontinuance of the Minor in Family and Consumer

Sciences Program, First Reading.

Senator Shrivastava, on behalf of Educational Policies

Council, moved that the Senate approve the discontinuance of the Minor in

Family and Consumer Sciences program.

Discussion items and questions included the following:

• The
  
  proposal identifies the minor as “central to the SFSU mission”; as such,
  
  how could the faculty vote to discontinue the program?

• The Department
  
  of Consumer and Family Studies/Dietetics has not been able to meet the
  
  enrollment demands of both majors and minors in their undergraduate
  
  programs. The department decided in 2005 to discontinue the minor program,
  
  to attenuate the demand for additional class sections; they decided it was
  
  better to deny enrollment to minors than to deny enrollment to majors.

• The
  
  current motion is simply to formally discontinue a program that was
  
  effectively eliminated by the department in 2005. The department should
  
  have requested a suspension or discontinuance in 2005.

• The
  
  reason for the discontinuance is limited resources, but the proposal
  
  identifies that there were only three students in the minor program per
  
  year in 1998-2002, and that no students have been admitted since. Thus,
  
  what resources will be saved by the discontinuance?

The speaker’s list is exhausted.

AGENDA ITEM #11—Recommendation from the Educational

Policies Council: Proposed Discontinuance of the Master of Arts in Social

Science: Concentration in Interdisciplinary Studies, First Reading.

Senator Shrivastava, on behalf of Educational Policies

Council, moved that the Senate approve the discontinuance of the Master of Arts

in Social Science: Concentration in Interdisciplinary Studies program.

Discussion items and questions included the following:

• This
  
  is another discontinuance by fiat, as the department and college imposed a
  
  moratorium on students entering the program two years ago. The College of
  
  Behavioral and Social Sciences (BSS) decided to not hire faculty in this
  
  area.

• The
  
  timing of this discontinuance proposal is particularly unfortunate.There
  
  will be a void in graduate studies in Social Science, as the proposed new
  
  Master of Arts in Social Science program will not be offered to students
  
  for at least several years.

• The
  
  College of Behavioral and Social Sciences has worked diligently with the
  
  currently-enrolled students, to ensure that they will be able to complete
  
  their theses. The college is unhappy that this program will be
  
  discontinued.

The speaker’s list was exhausted.

AGENDA ITEM #12—Recommendation from the Student Affairs

Committee: Proposed Resolution on the Affordability of Textbooks, First

Reading.

Senator McCracken, on behalf of the Student Affairs

Committee, moved that the Senate adopt a resolution on the affordability of

textbooks.

Discussion items and questions included the following:

• The
  
  “cradle-to-cradle” design paradigm should be incorporated into the
  
  textbook adoption process.

• The
  
  resolution should encourage faculty to develop and adopt textbooks that
  
  have Creative Commons licenses.

• No
  
  action or decision by faculty saves students more money than submitting
  
  textbook orders by the due date each semester. Three years ago, only 50%
  
  of textbook adoptions were submitted on time; in Fall 2008, the on-time
  
  rate had increased to 67%; Rob Strong, General Manager, SFSU Bookstore,
  
  predicts an even higher adoption rate by tomorrow’s deadline for Fall 2009
  
  courses.

• The
  
  SFSU Bookstore has been working with the J. Paul Leonard Library to
  
  implement a textbook rental program for undergraduate students. The
  
  Library’s assistance might help the Bookstore overcome significant
  
  obstacles to the rental program. Large-enrollment courses with expensive, required
  
  textbooks will be the first courses to be served by the rental program.

• Is a
  
  Senate resolution the most appropriate or effective method to bring this
  
  information to the faculty?

The speaker’s list was exhausted.

Chair Whalen declared the meeting adjourned at 4:24 p.m.